Inference about hill stations and amenities: from 'All hill stations have a sun-set point' and 'X is a hill station', determine which conclusions follow (X has a sun-set point; non–hill stations lack sun-set points)

Given data

• Premise 1: All hill stations ⟶ have a sun-set point.
• Premise 2: X is a hill station.
• Conclusions:
  • I: X has a sun-set point.
  • II: Places other than hill stations do not have sun-set points.

Concept/Approach (why this method)

Apply universal instantiation for X; avoid adding unstated exclusivity ('only hill stations have...').

Step-by-Step calculation / logic
1) From Premise 1, any hill station has a sun-set point; since X is one, X has it ⇒ I true.2) Premise 1 does not say non–hill stations lack it; II is an unwarranted converse ⇒ false.

Verification/Alternative

Counterexample to II: A non–hill station city could also have a sun-set viewpoint; premises don’t forbid it.

Common pitfalls

• Reading 'All hill stations have P' as 'Only hill stations have P'.

Final Answer
Only conclusion I follows.